In the Interest of: R.W., a Minor, Appeal of: WCCB
169 A.3d 129
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- Child R.W., born June 2014, was adjudicated dependent after agency shelter care and an aggravated-circumstances finding tied to abuse of a half-sibling; mother was incarcerated and later convicted of endangering the welfare of children. Child had been in placement ~29 months at the time of the challenged order.
- Mother's permanency plan required parenting counseling, housing, income, and non-offender parenting treatment; she completed counseling sessions, obtained housing, and had frequent in-home visitation (five days/four nights cycle) while living with her mother.
- Mother formed a relationship with paramour G.B.; the court ordered no unsupervised contact between G.B. and the child after G.B. had a pending drug-related charge. Mother admitted being untruthful to the caseworker about G.B.’s contact with the child.
- At the November 2, 2016 permanency hearing, G.B. tested positive for cocaine despite earlier representations to the contrary; testimony and CASA/foster parent reports indicated the frequent transfers between homes were emotionally harming the child.
- The trial court changed the permanency goal from reunification to adoption, ordered the agency to file petitions to involuntarily terminate both parents’ rights, limited Mother’s visitation to supervised alternating weekends, and prohibited any contact between G.B. and the child.
- Mother and the Westmoreland County Children’s Bureau appealed; the Superior Court reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the trial court, finding the decision supported by the record and grounded in the child’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (WCCB / Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred ordering agency to file TPR petition | WCCB argued Mother had progressed but court should direct TPR filing given child’s lengthy placement and safety concerns | Mother argued substantial compliance with FSP; termination not warranted; agency shouldn’t be penalized for paramour’s conduct | Court upheld order directing TPR filings: Mother's pattern of prioritizing paramours and untruthfulness supported concern for child safety and need for permanency |
| Whether evidence supported court’s findings on Mother's progress/compliance | WCCB asserted she made progress toward reunification | Mother emphasized counseling, housing, visitation as compliance | Court found mixed compliance but persistent risky behavior (relationship with G.B., dishonesty) justified denying reunification goal |
| Whether bond to Mother barred goal change / TPR move | WCCB/Mother argued existing bond weighed against termination | Court considered bond but held permanency and safety take precedence; bond issues appropriate for termination-phase analysis | Court held bond did not preclude directing TPR filing; permanency/stability prioritized |
| Whether reduction of visitation was improper | Mother argued reunification goal remained so visitation should not be cut drastically | Court/foster mother/CASA cited negative effects of frequent transfers and changed goal to adoption | Court affirmed reduction to supervised alternating weekends as consistent with changed goal and child’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re H.S.W.C.-B, 836 A.2d 908 (Pa. 2003) (permanency review orders granting/denying status changes are final and appealable)
- In re R.M.G., 997 A.2d 339 (Pa. Super. 2010) (goal-change decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion; trial court credibility findings afforded deference)
- In re S.B., 943 A.2d 973 (Pa. Super. 2008) (child’s safety, permanency, and well-being take precedence over parental claims)
- In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (agency need not offer services indefinitely when parent cannot apply instruction)
- In re A.P., 728 A.2d 375 (Pa. Super. 1999) (court may prioritize child’s needs when parent cannot meet minimum responsibilities)
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (court will not subordinate child’s need for permanence indefinitely to parent’s progress)
- In re C.J., 729 A.2d 89 (Pa. Super. 1999) (when reunification remains the goal, visitation may not be denied or reduced unless it poses a grave threat)
- Frazier v. City of Philadelphia, 735 A.2d 113 (Pa. 1999) (orders are not appealable until entered on the docket with required notice; court admonished regarding docket-entry rules)